Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

Mr. X wants gun control.

Mr. Y does not.

Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved". They see it as an all-or-nothing issue. One must dominate the other.

This is all incorrect.

Here:

Mr. X wants crunchy peanut butter.

Mr. Y does not.

If you suggested that Mr. Y must be forced to consume crunchy peanut butter in order for Mr. X to be satisfied, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

If you suggested that Mr. X *should* be able to tell Mr. Y that he must eat crunchy peanut butter, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved". They see it as an all-or-nothing issue. One must dominate the other.

This is all incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have said it better myself. As I've said in other threads, it's not about some of us "pro-gun" people wanting to "arm everyone ZOMG!" It's about being given the option to defend yourself with a handgun. We could throw statistics back and forth at each other all day long, but the burden of proof is on those people who wish to impose their preferences about guns on other people.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved".

[/ QUOTE ]

I might take issue with this. The "pro-gun" people only see it as a "problem" because it's being made into a "problem" by the anti-gun folks. They are the ones leading the charge and pro-gun people usually have to go on the defensive.

If all of a sudden crunchy peanut butter was the forced norm, the people who support the option of someone to eat creamy peanut butter would only be addressing the "problem" because it was brought about by the forced preference in the first place.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved".

[/ QUOTE ]

I might take issue with this. The "pro-gun" people only see it as a "problem" because it's being made into a "problem" by the anti-gun folks. They are the ones leading the charge and pro-gun people usually have to go on the defensive.

If all of a sudden crunchy peanut butter was the forced norm, the people who support the option of someone to eat creamy peanut butter would only be addressing the "problem" because it was brought about by the forced preference in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fundamentally true, but the people arguing it don't necessarily realize it! Many "pro-gun" types are thinking "they'll just have to live with me and my guns!" But this isn't any truer than "they'll just have to live with me and my crunchy peanut butter!"

There's no reason these people with different worldviews need to be compelled to associate with each other at all!

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you suggested that Mr. Y must be forced to consume crunchy peanut butter in order for Mr. X to be satisfied, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

If you suggested that Mr. X *should* be able to tell Mr. Y that he must eat crunchy peanut butter, people would (rightfully) say you're crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a political problem. It can go either way. Heck, the german people got rid of their "jewish problem" via a political solution. Tyranny is the norm in human culture. Maybe america was just a blip of freedom that will never happen again.

If you replace crunchy peanut butter with mandatory auto insurance, you can see that people will not say you're crazy.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

Guns will exist in all societies. The question is, what do you require from an individual to sell him a weapon? Should you have strict laws making it difficult owning a weapon or laws that benefits gun producers but "sadly" increases the death rates?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about candy, it's used to put diabetes in childrens blood.

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many people, on both sides, see this difference in personal preferences as a "problem" that must be "resolved". They see it as an all-or-nothing issue. One must dominate the other.

This is all incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have said it better myself. As I've said in other threads, it's not about some of us "pro-gun" people wanting to "arm everyone ZOMG!" It's about being given the option to defend yourself with a handgun. We could throw statistics back and forth at each other all day long, but the burden of proof is on those people who wish to impose their preferences about guns on other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it is a good point. Whose pockets get lined with the green for society seeing it as a 'problem'?

Re: Resolving Differences in Personal Preferences
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Crunchy peanut butter isn't used to put bullets in other people's flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a joke in here somewhere but I can't think of one.